What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California
In my unlawful detainer I want to impeach the testimony of my landlord who reneged on an oral agreement. We agreed that he would waive one month’s worth of rent as consideration for my promising not to sue him. I have audio and video that I secretly recorded of that transaction; I am substantially certain that the conversation itself was non-confidential and that the manager did not have a reasonable objective expectation of privacy. I want to introduce that video as evidence as proof of the oral agreement and also, if necessary to impeach the any testimony wherein the manager denies ever having made the oral agreement.
The conversation I spoke of occurred at the front desk of the office. During the conversation, other tenants could periodically approach to handle their affairs at the counter. They could easily overhear our conversation. You see and hear them in the video. Therefore, there was no reasonable objective expectation of privacy.
California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. [The reasonableness of the expectation would depend on the particular factual circumstances.] See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).
Confidential communication is anything a person reasonably expects to be private and confidential. It is not confidential if it can naturally be overheard by someone else. For example, if you are in public and do not expect to be recorded, but expect others to hear you, then it is not confidential. - However, you do not need any consent if the communication is not confidential.-
In my unlawful detainer I want to impeach the testimony of my landlord who reneged on an oral agreement. We agreed that he would waive one month’s worth of rent as consideration for my promising not to sue him. I have audio and video that I secretly recorded of that transaction; I am substantially certain that the conversation itself was non-confidential and that the manager did not have a reasonable objective expectation of privacy. I want to introduce that video as evidence as proof of the oral agreement and also, if necessary to impeach the any testimony wherein the manager denies ever having made the oral agreement.
- Can I present this audio/video recording as evidence?
- If so, do I need to provide a transcript of the audio?
- I presume that such an agreement need not to have been in writing, notwithstanding the fact that it involved rent credit involving residential property. Is that correct?
The conversation I spoke of occurred at the front desk of the office. During the conversation, other tenants could periodically approach to handle their affairs at the counter. They could easily overhear our conversation. You see and hear them in the video. Therefore, there was no reasonable objective expectation of privacy.
California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. [The reasonableness of the expectation would depend on the particular factual circumstances.] See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).
Confidential communication is anything a person reasonably expects to be private and confidential. It is not confidential if it can naturally be overheard by someone else. For example, if you are in public and do not expect to be recorded, but expect others to hear you, then it is not confidential. - However, you do not need any consent if the communication is not confidential.-
